Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter August 31, 2017

The Confines of Cognitive Literary Studies: The Sonnet and a Cognitive Poetics of Form

  • Felix Sprang EMAIL logo


When we think of the cognitive sciences and literature, we usually think of bringing expertise from neuroscience to literary texts. However, interdisciplinary projects of this nature usually focus on semantic fields or narrative patterns, marginalizing the literary quality of the texts that are examined. More recently, the opportunities that come with a focus on aesthetics and poetic form have been discussed following Stockwell (2009), who has argued that we need to go beyond semantics in the field of cognitive poetics. Experiments using fMRI scanners have shown that readers’ brains ›fire up‹ holistically but that engaging with poetry and prose activates different regions of the brain (cf. Jacobs 2015). So one task of cognitive poetics is to look more closely at the aesthetic experience of literary texts. The sonnet is arguably a suitable test case for a cognitive poetics that is interested in form. After all, received wisdom has it that the sonnet abides by a rigid formal pattern: »it is a fourteen-line poem with a particular rhyme scheme and a particular mode of organizing and amplifying patterns of image and thought […] usually [rendered in] iambic pentameter« (Levin 2001, xxxvii). Accordingly, matters of form should play a crucial part when sonnets are read. At the same time, due to its »particular mode« of organisation, the sonnet is often thought to be a poetic form that is prone to cognitive processes. Helen Vendler (1997, 168) claims, for example, that Shakespeare’s Sonnets reflect »the fluidity of mental processes (exemplified in lexical and syntactic concatenation)«. And according to Raphael Lyne (2011, 198), Shakespeare’s sonnets are an »ideal place« to investigate »thinking in a cognitive rhetoric«.

Following Vendler and Lyne in their focus on cognitive processes when discussing the sonnet, I will challenge simplistic notions of poetic form that – in the case of the sonnet – are limited to structural features like the fourteen-line rule. Aberrations like the sonetus retornellatus, a sixteen-line sonnet, testify that the number of lines is not a decisive formal feature for the sonnet form. The poetic form, I will argue, is indeed brought to the fore when we focus on the particular internal organisation of thought, and I will point to Shakespeare’s »Sonnet 126«, a twelve-line sonnet, in order to highlight cognitive approaches to the sonnet form. Bringing Cognitive Literary Studies (CLS) to the sonnet form is thus a promising endeavour. We need to make sure, however, that CLS is mindful of rhetorical strategies and logical patterns that inform and form the sonnet. And CLS needs to take into account that mental processes and poetic form are locked into a dynamic process: form resonates with cognitive skills rooted in rhetoric and logic, and at the same time shapes those mental processes.

If we accept that poetic form is not given but evolves while stimuli for cognitive processes and emotional responses are provided, research in cognitive poetics must take aspects of form more seriously. In her comprehensive study of poetic form, On Form. Poetry, Aestheticism, and the Legacy of a Word, Angela Leighton (2007, 1) has pointed out that the task for anybody who wishes to conceptualize form in the realm of language is to address its »bent […] towards materialization, towards being the shape or body of something«. As an abstract noun, ›form‹ feigns a static nature while it is, according to Leighton, a process, a cognitive activity. Conceptualizing form as a process, Leighton claims, will »alter the very thing we mean by knowing« (ibid., 27) because it will not allow for distilling knowledge about poetic form as a result of that process. This is very much in line with John G. Bruhn’s and Stewart Wolf’s »The Mind as a Process«, in which they have argued that in the study of the mind a »medical approach« alongside a »laboratory approach« is needed to develop »process-oriented research« (Bruhn/Wolf 2003, 84sq.).

Scrutinizing poetic form more systematically with the help of cognitive sciences thus also promises to help us redefine our concept of knowing. Exciting experiments with a focus on affect and emotional responses have brought to the fore the notion that aesthetics plays an important part in the process of reading poetry (cf. Lüdtke 2014). These experiments suggest that schema theory, with its reliance on pre-existing meaningful structures, falls short of grasping the process of reading poetry as an aesthetic process. So while pattern recognition, be it on a narrative plane or a semantic plane, is certainly one facet of the cognitive process of reading poetry, the process involves other facets, too, that CLS has only begun to address. Vaughan-Evans et al. (2016, 6) have perhaps provided »the first tangible evidence that this link [between an aesthetic appreciation of poetry and implicit responses] is permeable«. They argue that the »spontaneous recognition of poetic harmony is a fast, sublexical process« (ibid.) opening up a playing field for CLS at a sublexical level that still warrants investigation. Equally, a recent eye-tracking study of how English haiku are being read, conducted by Hermann J. Müller et al. (2017), has revealed that readers’ individual engagement with poetry becomes more diverse with a second or third round of engaging with the text. This may sound trivial, but it does challenge the notion that CLS will help establish universal patterns of cognition. On the contrary, CLS may corroborate a hermeneutical stance: with every reading of a poem, new questions arise; poems are never fully understood. CLS can thus help to heed Bruhn’s and Wolf’s interjection that »we should pay more attention to the responses of the individual qua individual than averaging individuals into groups« (Bruhn/Wolf 2003, 85).


Adorno, Theodor W., Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 7: Ästhetische Theorie [1970], hg. von Gretel Adorno/Rolf Tiedemann, Frankfurt a.M. 41984; Aesthetic Theory, ed. by Gretel Adorno/Rolf Tiedemann, transl. by Robert Hullot-Kentor, Minneapolis, MI 1997.Search in Google Scholar

Bohrn, Isabel C./Ulrike Altmann/Oliver Lubrich/Winfried Menninghaus/Arthur M. Jacobs, When We Like What We Know. A Parametric fMRI Analysis of Beauty and Familiarity, Brain and Language 124:1 (2013), 1–8.10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003Search in Google Scholar

Bruhn, John G./Stewart Wolf, The Mind as a Process, Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science 38:1 (2002), 75–87.10.1007/BF02734262Search in Google Scholar

Burke, Michael/Emily T. Troscianko (eds.), Cognitive Literary Science. Dialogues Between Literature and Cognition, Oxford 2017.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190496869.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cassirer, Ernst, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Vol. 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms, ed. by John Michael Krois/Donald Phillip Verene, transl. by John Michael Krois, New Haven 1996.Search in Google Scholar

Crother, Paul, Artistic Creativity. Illusion, Realities, Futures, in: Francis Halsall/Julia Jansen/Tony O’Connor (eds.), Rediscovering Aesthetics, Stanford, CA 2009, 133–146.10.1515/9781503627253-011Search in Google Scholar

Dewey, John, Art as Experience [1934], New York 2005.Search in Google Scholar

Diller, Hans-Jürgen, Metrik und Verslehre, Düsseldorf 1978.Search in Google Scholar

Graziani, René, The Numbering of Shakespeare’s Sonnets: 12, 60, and 126, Shakespeare Quarterly 35:1 (1984), 79–82.10.2307/2869687Search in Google Scholar

Hogan, Patrick, Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts. A Guide for Humanists, London 2003.Search in Google Scholar

Hogan, Patrick/Frederick Luis Aldama, Conversations on Cognitive Cultural Studies. Literature, Language, and Aesthetics, Columbus, OH 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Arthur M., Neurocognitive Poetics. Methods and Models for Investigating the Neuronal and Cognitive-affective Bases of Literature Reception, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16.04.2015, (19.06.2017).10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman, Linguistics and Poetics [1960], in: R.J., Selected Writings, Vol. 3: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, ed. by Stephen Rudy, New York et al. 1981.10.1515/9783110802122Search in Google Scholar

Koelsch, Stefan/Stavros Skouras/Thomas Fritz/Perfecto Herrera/Corinna Bonhage/Mats B. Küssner/Arthur M. Jacobs, The Roles of Superficial Amygdala and Auditory Cortex in Music-evoked Fear and Joy, NeuroImage 81 (2013), 49–60.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.008Search in Google Scholar

Leighton, Angela, On Form, Oxford 2007.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Phillis, The Penguin Book of the Sonnet. 500 Years of a Classic Tradition in English, London 2001.Search in Google Scholar

Lüdtke, Jana/Burkhard Meyer-Sickendieck/Arthur M. Jacobs, Immersing in the Stillness of an Early Morning. Testing the Mood Empathy Hypothesis of Poetry Reception, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8:3 (2014), 363–377.10.1037/a0036826Search in Google Scholar

Lyne, Raphael, Shakespeare, Rhetoric and Cognition, Cambridge 2011.10.1017/CBO9780511997051Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Hermann J./Thomas Geyer/Franziska Günther/Jim Kacian/Stella Pierides, Reading English-Language Haiku. Processes of Meaning Construction Revealed by Eye Movements, Journal of Eye Movement Research 10:1 (2017), 1–33.10.16910/10.1.4Search in Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita/Jean Hudson/Ulf Magnusson (eds.), The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space, Oxford 2013.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641635.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Shakespeare, William, The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series: Sonnets, ed. by Katherine Duncan Jones, Walton-on-Thames 1997.Search in Google Scholar

Sheehan, Paul, Continental Drift. The Clash Between Literary Theory and Cognitive Literary Studies, in: Chris Danta/Helen Groth (eds.), Mindful Aesthetics. Literature and the Science of Mind, London 2014, 47–58.10.5040/ in Google Scholar

Stockwell, Peter, Texture. A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading, Edinburgh 2009.10.1515/9780748631209Search in Google Scholar

Tallis, Raymond, The Neuroscience Delusion, Times Literary Supplement, 09.04.2008, 26–28.Search in Google Scholar

Theile, Verena/Linda Tredennick (eds.), New Formalisms and Literary Theory, Basingstoke et al. 2013.10.1057/9781137010490Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael, A Natural History of Human Thinking, Cambridge, MA 2014.10.4159/9780674726369Search in Google Scholar

Tsur, Reuven, Poetic Conventions as Cognitive Fossils, Oxford 2017 (forthcoming).Search in Google Scholar

Vaughan-Evans, Awel/Robat Trefor/Llion Jones/Peredur Lynch/Manon W. Jones/Guillaume Thierry, Implicit Detection of Poetic Harmony by the Naïve Brain, Frontiers in Psychology, 25.10.2016, (19.06.2017).10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01859Search in Google Scholar

Vendler, Helen, The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Cambridge, MA 1997.10.4159/9780674088580Search in Google Scholar

Zeman, Adam/Fraser Milton/Alicia Smith/Rick Rylance, By Heart. An fMRI Study of Brain Activation by Poetry and Prose, Journal of Consciousness Studies 20:9–10 (2013), 132–158.Search in Google Scholar

Zunshine, Lisa (ed.), Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, Baltimore, MD 2010.10.1353/book.500Search in Google Scholar

Zunshine, Lisa (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies, Oxford 2015.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199978069.013.0001Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-8-31
Published in Print: 2017-8-1

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 6.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button